Junio 2023 Panel Comments: BBO Bidders Challenge

Conducted by Marc Smith

Set 2023-6

Welcome to round six, which takes us to the midway point of the 2023 annual competition.

I mentioned a couple of months back, that we hope the winning team in all major events will include at least one member of our esteemed panel. The recent European Winter Games did not disappoint, with Ola Rimstedt in the winning team, along with his brother, Mikael, Erik Berg, Peter Crouch, Richard Plackett and Espen Erichsen. I hope that regular readers will keep an eye on the upcoming European Transnational Championships, which begin in Strasbourg in a few days. You can follow the action either live on BBO VuGraph, or via my own highlight reports in the BBO Newsfeed. Of course, I’ll be rooting for at least one of our panelists to feature in the winning team in each of the four main events.

Our two guest panelists this month scored an impressive 78/80 in the Abril competition. They are Paul Boudreau from USA and Stephen Merriman from New Zealand. This is Stephen’s second time as a guest panelist. He is a website developer who admits, “I have a guilty secret, in that while I've played online for many years, I've never been to a real-life bridge club. I spend most of my bridge hours trying to reverse-engineer GIB's ‘thought’ process to see how it might be improved, and posting in the BBO forums.” The current leader in the annual competition, just ahead of his brother (Bob), Paul is a semi-retired computer programmer who moved from Needham, MA to the Los Angeles suburbs in 1978. Now unable to attend tournaments, he has been a student of this great game for over 50 years. He won “The Bridge World” Master Solver's Club title in 2018 and enjoys discussing bridge with his brother.

Hand 5 this month comes from one of our regular panelists, Sally Brock. If you have a hand that you think would produce an interesting panel discussion, please send me details. Remember that the best problems offer three or more sensible actions rather than being a straight choice between two.

The panel produces a clear majority choice on five of the eight hands this month. The largest group of competition entrants matches the panel’s choice on only two deals, and voting with the largest group of competitors this month scores 58/80 (down from 60 last month). However, this looks like a high-scoring set, with the average score 51.38 (up from 46.74 on Set 2023-5), 72/80 needed to make the montly leader-board, and two competitors even recording a perfect 80/80.

I am sure there will still be plenty to be learned from the views of our expert panel, so let’s get to it…

Find your bids here and compare your answers with those of the panel.

Note: All hands this month are at IMPs scoring.

HAND 1.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.46

How often do you get to jump to slam with no trumps? If ever there was a chance to impress your kibitzers, this is the hand on which to do so. The panel is split into three main camps: simply bid slam, just raise to game, or use Blackwood. There is no majority for any of the options, but the one thing they all agree is that this is not the time to look for an alternative trump suit, so the quarter of competitors who bid their spades score zero. Ask yourself, “What use do you think partner’s hand will be in any strain other than diamonds?”
There is some dissension amongst the Blackwood bidders as to what they plan to do next. I have to agree with Jessica’s logic for not bothering with Blackwood…

LARSSON: 6♦. With some partners, 4NT would be to play and 5♣ would ask for key cards, with others 4NT would be the ask. On this hand, I won't really be able to figure out what is good enough anyway, so I take my chances in slam.

WANG: 6♦. I hope for only one loser in the diamond suit.
HULT: 6♦. I gamble that partner has a good suit vulnerable.
MOULD: 6♦. I cannot investigate, so I just have to guess. At this vulnerability, partner ought to have a good suit for 4♦.

Is that true? See the comments from Simon de Wijs and Cedric Lorenzini about 5♣ below.
MERRIMAN: 6♦. Partner should have good diamonds at this vulnerability. With KQJ to eight, we’ll need a 3-2 break to make slam, but maybe he’ll have the 10 too.
COHEN: 6♦. At unfavorable vulnerability, I would expect a four-level pre-emptor will not have two losers in his suit. Picture as little as ♦KQJ10xxxx and nothing else (which is surely a minimum at these colors).
MEYERS: 6♦. Partner can't have a solid eight-card suit or he would more likely have opened 3NT. He could possibly have QJ10xxxxx and the ♠K, so there is no guarantee of 12 tricks, but I bid what I think we are most likely to be making.
LORENZINI: 6♦. I can bid 5♣ to invite slam in diamonds, but I play him for a maximum one-loser trump suit at these colors.
COPE: 6♦. We are assuming partner has an eight-card suit and, hopefully, at most one loser in that suit. That leaves him with five other cards, and I have enough aces and kings to cover those.
SUNDELIN: 6♦. After deciding to overcall with 4♠, I discovered that it was partner who had opened. Now that I am awake: assuming a standard style for 4♦ vulnerable, raising to slam seems clear.
The other major faction begins by asking…
BRANCO: 4NT. Asking for key-cards.
CLEMENTSSON: 4NT. Or 5♣, depending on what's RKCB. If I didn't have a way to ask for key cards, I would just bid 6♦, but if I can avoid getting to slam when he has something like Kx/x/QJ10xxxxxx/x it seems stupid not to do so.
S. BALDYSZ: 4NT. If partner opened with AKxxxxxx in diamonds slam just needs trumps to split reasonably. If partner shows no key cards, I can pass 5♦.
BIRD: 4NT. It would be a bit lazy to raise to 6♦. I will enquire about his trump honours.
BERGEN: 4NT. Since unfavorable four-bids are meaningful, I will bid 6♦ opposite one key-card.
Miguel is not planning to be so ambitious…
VILLAS-BOAS: 4NT. My partner opened vulnerable against not, so I will bid 4NT. With one key card, I will play 5♦, with two I will play 6♦.
Whereas the Pauls are still looking for a grand…
MARSTON: 4NT. Will try for seven if partner shows ♦AKQ.
BOUDREAU: 4NT. Vul-v-NV, partner could easily have AKQxxxxx. After a 5♠ response, 5NT should ask for the jack or a nine-bagger, as a 4♦ opening with AKQ should never include a side king IMO.
Only Simon allowed partner to express an opinion.
DE WIJS: 5♣. This is a slam try for diamonds. At this vulnerability, I am taking partner seriously, but I will leave him an out.
Only a handful were prepared to settle for just a game bonus.
ROBSON: 5♦. I am guessing between 5♦ and 6♦, with no way to find out. Yes, partner is red v green, but does he have the ♦J in KQJ9xxxx or KQ98xxxx? On the principle that 620 (5♦ plus one, six cold) isn't necessarily bad, whereas -100 (6♦ down one) is always bad, I'll take the low road.
C. BALDYSZ: 5♦.
SHENKIN: 5♦.
SAELENSMINDE: 5♦.
BROCK: 5♦. It is very tempting to bid 6♦, but going to go for the low road.

Partner had x/xxx/AQJ98xxx/x, so 6♦ makes on any 3-2 break and on 40% of the 4-1 splits (singleton ten or king), so slam is around the 80% mark.

HAND 2.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.74

This is the first of five deals this month on which we have a majority verdict from the panel. Whilst the three most popular choices amongst competitors match the options garnering support from panelists, the panel’s majority choice attracts the smallest of those groups. A key question on which the panel do not agree, is how to get partner to lead a spade against 3NT…

WANG: Pass. Double would tell partner not to lead a spade.
C. BALDYSZ: Dbl. Lead your suit.
CLEMENTSSON: Pass. I would've preferred to redouble the first time, but now I won't bid anything. Double would discourage a spade lead for me so that's a no go.
BIRD: Dbl. Perhaps I should have redoubled 3♠. I am hoping for a spade lead now anyway.
BROCK: Pass. I would have bid 4♠ last time. As it is, I’ll pass. I play that double asks partner not to lead their suit so, hopefully, they will when I don’t.
MEYERS: Dbl. First of all, I would not have passed 3♠, but would have redoubled. Now that I have passed, I would double, hoping that partner knows to lead a spade.
MOULD: Pass. Well, I would not have started from here -- I would have raised to 4♠ on the previous round. Having passed, it now seems inconsistent to bid. I suspect partner will not lead a spade (after all I have suggested something else). I want to double for a spade lead, but I think it probably calls for a heart.
So that seems perfectly clear! I suggest you check with your regular partner to ensure you are in agreement about the lead for which double asks or does not ask.
LORENZINI: Pass. Let’s see if they can make it.
LARSSON: Pass. Hoping for a plus score.
Some didn’t double because they expect the contract to go down…
SHENKIN: Pass. Let’s collect likely hundreds.
BERGEN: Pass. I hope to beat this, but I am unsure of defeating a suit contract.
HULT: Pass. I don’t think 3NT is making but, if I double, they might run to 4m.
MARSTON: Pass. No double as I expect they will do much better in a suit.
ROBSON: Pass. I dislike the slow last guess route, so will live with my earlier decision. 4♠-X will be about -300 but I reckon the chances of 3NT making are less than 50-50. I don't want to double and have them run, and face another guess.
S. BALDYSZ: Pass. As North is limited to 15 HCP, it is possible that 3NT might not make. 4♠ is likely to go down two or three.
MERRIMAN: Pass. The time to bid 4♠ was on the last round. I have no idea why I passed, but I won't change my mind now for principle's sake.
You were hoping they would find a heart fit, perhaps? Some are prepared to double anything now…
BRANCO: Dbl. I think they have bid too much.
COHEN: Dbl. If I didn't bid 4♠ the first time, it is because I was playing for penalties -- they could be in big trouble anywhere. If they run, I am committed to making the macho double of wherever they land, but I sure hope they stay right here.
VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. I hope partner has at least the ♠J.
Now that the opponents have not found a heart fit, some optimists are prepared to bid…
SAELENSMINDE: 4♠. It might even make.
SUNDELIN: 4♠. As my partner has QJ10xxxx/xx/Qxxx/--- and South ---/Jxxx/10xx/AK10xx.
BOUDREAU: 4♠. As I didn't redouble previously, a double now should ask for dummy's first-bid suit (i.e. hearts here). Although they are probably down in 3NT, I will save NV-v-Vul in case RHO has six clubs. A good partner might even make 4♠-X with Q10xxxxx/Jxx/xx/x (or even a doubleton club if they lead a diamond).
COPE: 4♠. Partner's pre-empt at this vulnerability can be putrid, so I will take out some insurance. The fact that they are not playing in 4♥ means that partner is not short in hearts, so the save rates to be cheap. If partner has any real values, we may even make it.

Simon makes a very valid point.
DE WIJS: 4♠. Weird problem. I think 3NT is likely going down, but doubling is something I am not doing as that would ask for a different (heart) lead. On some days, 3NT will make and on some other days 4♠ will make. If either makes, it is right to bid, so let's hope it’s one of those days.

When the hand occurred at the table, it certainly was one of those days. Partner had J109xxxx/J9x/xx/x and the winning option was to save in 4♠, which is one down for -100. 3NT had nine tricks (6♣/2♥/1♠) but you had three diamond tricks against game in either minor.

HAND 3.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.64

A significant majority from the panel, but not a single panelist offering support for the competitors’ most popular choice, which is why this is comfortably the lowest-scoring hand of the month. For the panel it came down to a choice between showing a strong hand and inviting game, and simply taking control and bidding it yourself. We start with Alan, who succinctly sums up why the majority choice was clear to most of the panel

MOULD: 2NT. 3d♦is too little, 3NT too much and double a waste of time.

LARSSON: 2NT. This feels pretty straightforward.
SUNDELIN: 2NT. Somewhat optimistic.
BROCK: 2NT. Hopefully, partner can raise with a few bits and pieces.
CLEMENTSSON: 2NT. I am hoping that partner will raise quite liberally with the ♦K.
BOUDREAU: 2NT. Stronger and more descriptive than 3♦.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2NT. I can make 3NT with as little as the ♦K and a club stop with my partner.
MARSTON: 2NT. I am surely still interested in game with these long diamonds.
COPE: 2NT. Partner's failure to bid implies weakness, but he may still have some values (just insufficient to make a bid at this level). 3NT looks the most likely game, so we will start on our voyage of discovery.
If there is some question as to whether 2NT should be Good/Bad in this auction, the panel seems to give that a major thumbs down…
BRANCO: 2NT. Natural.
MEYERS: 2NT. If 2NT is natural, that is what I bid. If 2NT is not natural, I would have to bid 3♦.
WANG: 2NT. Showing 18+ points.
DE WIJS: 2NT. This is consistent with 18-19, which is what I am worth for sure. If anything, this is an underbid, but I am lacking some diamond intermediates to gamble 3NT on my own.
COHEN: 2NT. I don't really want to play here, but this does the best job of showing my hand ("balanced" 18-19).
C. BALDYSZ: 2NT.
ROBSON: 2NT. Likely shows this sort-of skewed hand. For me, this is a clear-cut action, the first of the set.
BIRD: 2NT. Some will bid 3NT, I suppose.
An accurate prediction from David…
SHENKIN: 3NT. I don't need much.
SAELENSMINDE: 3NT.
HULT: 3NT. I hope partner has one card and diamonds break.
S. BALDYSZ: 3NT. Lets’ hope partner has the ♦K and some sort of a club stopper.
BERGEN: 3NT. We are unlikely to make exactly 2NT. I definitely would have opened 2NT as this hand is definitely in range for 20-21.
I suppose that is an option, although it makes getting to 6♦ when that is right almost impossible.
LORENZINI: 3NT. This can be made quickly if partner has a card.
MERRIMAN: 3NT. Based on the system notes, 2NT is weak and 3♦ shows extras after partner failed to act. Despite all that, there are plenty of hands where we have nine top tricks and partner would pass 3♦, so I'll gamble.

Partner had Kxxx/Qx/9x/Q10xxx so 3NT was good and he would certainly raise 2NT, so the whole panel scores +400. Those who bid 3♦ probably play there and make ten tricks for +130.

HAND 4.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.91

Another big majority from the panel, but close to two-thirds of competitors prefer the alternative option. Let’s first deal with the elephant in the room, as a number of panelists mentioned their dislike for our 3♠ bid on the previous round. The problem as presented would be close to the same had we instead bid 4♠. The point, though, is that if you jump to 4♠, you are very likely to hear 5♣ on your left. However, by bidding only 3♠, there is a small chance that it may go 4♣-P-P-4♠ and you may be allowed to play there, which is obviously what you want to happen. The majority had a number of different reasons for their choice…

MARSTON: Pass. It is not clear who can make what, but there are many ways to win when they are in 5♣.
LARSSON: Pass. Perhaps bidding 3♥ on the first round would have been better.
DE WIJS: Pass. 5♠ is likely down two against 5♣ making. I am passing and hoping that today 5♣ will be down one -- partner might have some outside trick once in a while.
HULT: Pass. 5♠ is 300 or more and 5♣ might go down.
MEYERS: Pass. I don't think we are making 5♠, and I do not know if I am beating 5♣, but I am thinking my ♥K-J may be tricks. Also, I would have bid 4♠ over 3♣.

Paul thinks he can see a way of defeating their contract…
BOUDREAU: Pass. 5♠ will likely be -300. Assuming LHO has a diamond honor, my ♦10 requires as little as K9x(x) from partner to stop the diamonds running. Even Q9x(x) will suffice when LHO has the ♦J. I will hope spades are 1-1 and lead the ♠9 and beat 5♣ when partner dutifully switches to hearts after seeing dummy.

Some are concerned about the cost of a sacrifice…
BROCK: Pass. Presumably this is what I had in mind when I only bid 3♠ last time. I can’t see a save being better than -300, and we have some sort of chances in defense.
C. BALDYSZ: Pass. They're probably making 5♣, but 5♠ could be too expensive at equal vulnerability.
BIRD: Pass. Six spade tricks, perhaps one heart and perhaps one club ruff. That's still 500 down in 5♠-X at Love All. Even if partner has the ♥Q, -300 is not much of a save against their 400. I am going to pass. I don't want to push them into 6♣.
A few are worried about the opponents bidding even more…
SAELENSMINDE: Pass. I don’t want to have to save against 6♣.
BRANCO: Pass. Hmm… I’m afraid they may bid 6♣.
VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. If I bid 5♠ and they then bid 6♣, what will I do????
MOULD: Pass. Another hand where I would not have started from here. You have walked the dog on this hand, and now have to accept you have the last guess. I guess Pass. What are you going to do if you bid 5♥/♠ and it goes P-P-6♣....?
WANG: Pass. I don’t like my 3♠ bid now.
So, what do the bidders have to say?
LORENZINI: 5♠. I wouldn’t bid 3♠ the first time, but I think we can make 5♠.
Clearly, the concept of a WEAK two hasn’t reached France yet 😊
COPE: 5♠. Probably minus 300, but do I really want to defend 5♣? In a perfect world, partner has a stiff diamond and ♥A-x-x and we might even roll it.
S. BALDYSZ: 5♠. I don't see how we're setting 5♣. Hoping for only two down in 5♠-X, and maybe one down if partner has a heart void.
CLEMENTSSON: 5♠. It’s impossible to know what's correct. If either of the opponents were close to bidding something else, I would probably pass.
SUNDELIN: 5♠. Who had my hand until now?
I confess that was me, P.O. 😊
SHENKIN: 5♠.
COHEN: 5♠. Add me to the list of complainers about the 3♠ bid. At this point, I am just hoping for -100 or maybe -300 against -400. Conceivably a make opposite, say, QJxxxx/Qxx/x/Axx.
ROBSON: 5♠. When I chose to slow-play on the first round, I did so planning to keep going. But I do understand the naysayers "They may bid 6♣, upside is 300 v 400 so no big deal ...".
A couple pave the way for a six-level save, perhaps…
BERGEN: 5♥. I hate to give them extra room, but this night be necessary if they bid 6♣. I would NOT have responded 3♠!
MERRIMAN: 5♥. I would have bid differently last round, but it likely didn't matter this time. With an 11-card fit, I'm not passing. I'll show my hearts along the way in case it helps partner.

When the hand occurred in a match, partner had QJxxxx/xx/KQx/xx so 5♠ was only one down, but 5♣ went two down. The winning action was double, but passing gained 5 IMPs against 5♠-X down one at the other table when West bid a more predictable 4♠ then 5♠.

HAND 5.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.19

The panel come up with only four choices, but the competitors managed a great deal more. The experts produce a majority, and more than a quarter of competition entrants pick up maximum marks. Did the majority win the debate, though? I suspect more members of the panel would have gone for 4♦ had they thought of it. Let’s start with the arguments in support of the two popular choices…

MERRIMAN: 2♠. Keep the bidding low and show my three-card support. This seems like a "What else?", so I'm probably missing something.
BOUDREAU: 2♠. Allows more bidding space than 3♠.
WANG: 2♠. Support first.
BRANCO: 2♠. Natural bid.
LARSSON: 2♠. This feels like the obvious bid. It shows some extras, which I have, and over 2NT I can bid 3♥.
Why does it show extras? Wouldn’t you also have to bid 2♠ with a minimum 2-5-2-4 shape without a diamond stop?
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♠. 2♠ first and, if my partner bids 2NT, then 3♥.
SAELENSMINDE: 2♠. Then 3/4♥ next.
CLEMENTSSON: 2♠. Followed by 3♥ if partner bids 2NT.
HULT: 2♠. Start with spades, then bid hearts later.
DE WIJS 2♠. I am starting here since, by bidding 2♥, partner will never believe I have three spades. I may be able to rebid hearts later to paint a perfect picture.
C. BALDYSZ: 2♠.
S. BALDYSZ: 2♠. I usually play a different system here. I know some people play 2♥ here shows six. Not sure what the standard is.
BERGEN: 2♠. In constructive auctions, I love showing fragments (even more so when support).
SUNDELIN: 2♠. Close to 3♠, but not quite.
They all seem satisfied, so why jump to 3♠?
SHENKIN: 3♠. 2♠ does give more room, but I could have only a doubleton spade.
BIRD: 3♠. You might have to bid 2♠ now on a doubleton spade. Anyway, I cannot give the impression that I regret opening in the first place.
ROBSON: 3♠. I think the spade bid gives a fuller picture of the hand than the heart bid, and it is clearly right to jump, as 2♠ is usually 2-5-2-4 shape. If partner bids 3NT, naturally we can bid 4♥ and have now given partner a blueprint.
MOULD: 3♠. If you judge this hand too strong to have raised 1♠ to 2♠ (I agree), then you bid 3♠ now to show 3-5-1-4 shape and extra values. This is the closest I can get to describing my hand.
MARSTON: 3♠. Showing a good hand with three spades, and therefore short diamonds.
MEYERS: 3♠. I want to get my diamond shortness across and let partner know I have a good hand
LORENZINI: 3♠. I start with 3♠ to show extra values and will follow with 4♦ over 3NT to show 3-6-0-4 shape.
That does sound like a more convincing argument to me, but weight of numbers earns the 10 marks. Larry is flying solo on this one.
COHEN: 2♥. When several calls are possible, choose the lowest to allow the most room. I'd love to hear if partner repeats spades. If not, I can bid 3♠ next.
But, I think Tim and Sally win the debate.

BROCK: 4♦. Ah. This is a hand I sent in. I’m sure 4♦ is the right bid, if you think of it. What else can it mean?

COPE: 4♦. Hopefully this shows a 3-6-0-4 and a decent hand, as I neither supported spades nor rebid my six-card heart suit at my second turn. It should not be too difficult for partner to work this out.

Partner had AJ10x/Kx/Jxxx/Kxx, so 6♥ is only a little worse than one of two finesses. The 4♦ bidders are perhaps furthest down the road to reaching that contract.

HAND 6.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.67

We find ourselves in a familiar enough position, so the panel will surely be able to offer some sound advice, won’t they? Not at all – they offer three primary choices, with no majority vote. The largest group of competitors (over 40%) chose an option that garnered support from only one member of the panel, but nearly a third of competition entrants did collect a ‘10’.

BERGEN: Pass. Either 3NT or 5♦ could work out, but only if partner has the right hand.
BRANCO: Pass. Nowadays, pre-emptive openings are very weak.
SUNDELIN: Pass. With today's preempt standard.
HULT: Pass. What’s our style?
LARSSON: Pass. I hope it makes.
Yes, it would be disappointing if 3♦ went down!
MEYERS: Pass. We are not vulnerable and the chances are that we do not have a game, so I am passing.
COPE: Pass. Cowardly, but I have seen my partner's pre-empts at this vulnerability before. We are no certainty to make 4♦ if the ♠K is wrong and, hopefully, I have enough values that the opponents will not be bidding.

Andrew sums up the logic for choosing the conservative approach on this hand.
ROBSON: Pass. It's possible that one of 3NT/5♦ is making, but facing a green v red (albeit 2^nd seat) pre-empt, they both may be failing. Passing gains (over guessing between those games) when neither is making, or if I guess the wrong one. It is easy to construct hands where game is making (5♦ being the more likely) but also easy to construct hands where 3♦ is the limit.

The largest faction on the panel shut their eyes and hope for the best.
BROCK: 3NT. This seems a more likely make than 5♦. Pass is probably the winning option, but it depends a bit on who I’m playing with!
CLEMENTSSON: 3NT. A close call for me. Pass may well be better.
BIRD: 3NT. It would be unlucky if any other game was better.
DE WIJS: 3NT. Tough choice, so I am going for the one with the largest upside. 5♦ is not on my radar BTW, but that might also be right.
BOUDREAU: 3NT. Maybe they will lead passively. Losing five hearts and the ♣A is only -100, so worth the gamble.
MERRIMAN: 3NT. I hope the opponents can't /don't run hearts (and it's not going to cost much even if they do).
C. BALDYSZ: 3NT.
SAELENSMINDE: 3NT.
COHEN: 3NT. Hoping my opponents don't lead or defend well. A cheap investment at odds of +400 against -50 a trick. I confess, that pass is likely the long-run winner opposite today's favorable-vulnerability preempts, especially against a double-dummy computer who never leads a spade.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT. I don’t like passing with my hand, because North can double with short diamonds and they may be able to make 4♥. On a lucky day, I will make 3NT.
Perhaps this third group have the best of the debate…
S. BALDYSZ: 3♠. Partner might have some sort of heart stop for 3NT. If he bids 4♦, I'll pass and expect to lose two hearts and the ♣A.
LORENZINI: 3♠. I would pass at matchpoints but, at IMPs, I would see if he can bid 3NT, otherwise we can stop in 4♦.
WANG: 3♠. I hope East can bid 3NT.
MARSTON: 3♠. I will pass 3NT and hope for the best.
MOULD: 3♠. This would be very dependent on who I am playing with. If John Holland, I drive game. If Ollie Burgess, I pass. Today I will get cute with 3♠. If partner bids 3NT, I’ll table the dummy. If he bids 4♠ I’ll bid 5♦.
That’s exactly what would have happened at the table, and you’d have joined Barnet in collecting the maximum available.
SHENKIN: 5♦. If I bid 3♠ and get 3NT, what now?

Partner had Kxx/Q/Q109xxxx/Jx so 5♦ was an easy make and 3NT was two down. And, you have to bid game to flatten the board, as the East hand passed at the other table and then came in with 5♦ after 2♥-X-4♥-? A tough game!

HAND 7.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 8.0

High-level competitive bidding decisions are hard, and no one gets them right all the time. Some situations are simply too difficult, as evidenced by three-quarters of our expert panel choosing the option that would have been wrong at the table, and half of competition entrants agreeing with them. The majority expressed varying degrees of enthusiasm…

SHENKIN: 5♠. Reluctant, but…
LARSSON: 5♠. Who knows?
WANG: 5♠. Although I don’t like bidding at the five-level, on this hand I will do that.
SUNDELIN: 5♠. I know it is their level, but do they know, and is it?
BOUDREAU: 5♠. Pessimistic defense. Cheap insurance.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♠. I don’t have the information to do anything else.
ROBSON: 5♠. This is probably anti-Law, but having the ace and jack of spades tells me partner is verrry long, maybe eight cards. If partner is, say KQxxxxx/--/xx/AQxx, then it could easily be that 5♥ and 6♠ are both making. If either side can make 11 tricks, it is best to bid.
BRANCO: 5♠.
CLEMENTSSON: 5♠.
SAELENSMINDE: 5♠.
MEYERS: 5♠. No explanation needed.
Some were more confident
S. BALDYSZ: 5♠. It does depend on the style/partnership agreements for 4♠, but I have three hearts, which increases the probability of partner having a singleton/void in their suit.
LORENZINI: 5♠. Three small hearts makes me think that my partner is void or stiff and that I have good cards for him.
MOULD: 5♠. 4♠ shows a seriously good hand. I am closer to 6♠ than anything else.
HULT: 5♠. 4♠ is a very good hand. We might make slam.
BROCK: 5♠. I think partner has shown a pretty good hand.
COHEN: 5♠. "The five-level belongs to the opponents" is more for when I've already gotten a chance to describe. Here, I have too much in spades to give up on a very possible +450 and settle for maybe +50 (or even -450).
COPE: 5♠. I hope we do not make too many. 4♠ from partner is a strong bid, equivalent to an old-fashioned Acol 2, and my two tricks should be enough to ensure 11 tricks, but I have no way to find out if we have 12.

Stephen alone was prepared to commit higher…
MERRIMAN: 6♠. Partner has a good hand and a likely heart void. With a 30-point deck, I'm contributing a couple of extra tricks.

Only a handful preferred to take whatever money was going…
MARSTON: Dbl. When they bid at the five-level and we have this, we kiss them goodbye.
BIRD: Dbl. Partner is likely to hold six cards in the minors. If these are good enough to restrict our losers in 5♠ to two, we should get a reasonable penalty defending 5♥-X.
DE WIJS: Dbl. Lacking a forcing pass, I have to decide for myself. I double and hope partner will remove with a freak hand.
BERGEN: Dbl. Just showing some cards. I believe that 4♠ over 2♥ does NOT promise a big hand (especially NV), and thus does not set up a forcing pass.
C. BALDYSZ: Pass.

Partner had KQ109xxx/K/Axx/Ax so there were three losers in 5♠, but you have four top tricks plus a club ruff against 5♥-X, so +500.

HAND 8.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.78

I think this was the most difficult of this month’s deals. There are four reasonable choices: each received some support from the experts and none was even close to garnering enough votes for a majority, so everyone scores well. The competition entrants are also evenly divided, but amongst only three choices. Let’s see if any of the factions can win the debate…

BERGEN: Pass. Despite the vulnerability, I will content myself with a modest plus score (I hope).
DE WIJS: Pass. Much depends on the opposition, but I am taking the plus score. I need a lot to make game, starting with four hearts, which is far from certain.
BIRD: Pass. I was worth a single raise in diamonds initially. Should I now support three-levels higher because partner has enough to re-open against 4♣. I don't think so. Also, if we play the contract, breaks may be bad.
BOUDREAU: Pass. I will pray that the ♦K lives, so I can see dummy. I am ready to apologize if I have hung partner.

CLEMENTSSON: Pass. This doesn't feel great red-v-white, but I'm not sure we can make anything. If you trust North's pass, it seems like partner will often have 18-19 balanced.

LORENZINI: Pass. Not easy. Pass, 4♦ and 4♥ are all possibilities. I don’t really like passing with four diamonds, but I think Pass will secure +300 most of the time. I don’t know about 4♥: if trumps split badly, it could be horrible.
Those arguments sound convincing, so what do the bidders have to say?
MEYERS: 4♦. I might pass, but I have too many diamonds to risk defending.
COHEN: 4♦. For offense, I have a flat 4-count (the club cards aren't likely worth anything). I don't expect to make 4♥ even opposite four of them and, if partner has only three, it could be disastrous. Passing is maybe right, but I have too many diamonds not to support.
COPE: 4♦. I am not going to overbid this hand, as many potential bad breaks are lurking. Even if partner has four hearts, game is no certainly, and opposite a 4-3-5-1, 4♥ would be a disaster, and 5♦ a bridge too far for me.
WANG: 4♦. The ♣KJ is not useful to declare, so I don’t want to bid 4♥.
SUNDELIN: 4♦. Cowardly?
SAELENSMINDE: 4♦.
BROCK: 4♦. A guess. It’s likely that there are bad breaks, so I don’t want to play in a 4-3 heart fit with my 10xxx.
ROBSON: 4♦. A timid choice, but partner is virtually compelled to reopen with a singleton club and, facing that, my values don't look that great. Naturally, I'll apologize if we miss game (but which one?). And, maybe game will fail on bad splits (and we know suits will split badly, of course).
BRANCO: 4♦. I don’t have enough for 5♦.
Disagreeing with Marcelo…
HULT: 5♦. Pass, 5♦ or 4♥ -- anything could be right. I know we have diamonds, so I go with that suit.
S. BALDYSZ: 5♦. 4♥ might be better, but if partner has 4-3-6-0 or similar shape with only three hearts, we will surely be better off in diamonds. In the Polish style, I would have considered bidding 4♦ on the first round, as we're known to have a fit.
C. BALDYSZ: 5♦.
SHENKIN: 5♦. Anything could be right here - put it through a simulator. If you bid only 4♦, you can still perhaps get to 4♥. I don't like pass with four of partner’s suit.
And perhaps the biggest bulls in this China shop…
MARSTON: 4♥. Brave on the outside, but scared on the inside.
MERRIMAN: 4♥. No idea. Anything could be right. We might not have a heart fit, but I'll probably regret it if I bid anything else and we do.
LARSSON: 4♥. Maybe I can make my 4-3 fit, if that is what I get.
It’s 4-2 actually.
MOULD: 4♥. The ♣K-J are liable to be junk, but if I am going to try to take ten tricks I may as well go for the game bonus as well. It could be horribly wrong, of course.
Miguel makes a point that would have been important at the table…
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♥. If they double, I will remove to 5♦.

If you bid 4♥ if gets a very fast double on your left. Of course, North should not double as he knows 4♥ is going down, whereas 5♦ has play. East had AQxx/Kx/AQxxx/xx so 4♣-X is +300, 4♦ is +130/150, 5♦ may be +600 but 4♥ is three down. In diamonds, you have to guess the clubs after a singleton spade lead and, as South has overcalled on x/Jx/xxx/Q109xxxx, the odds are against you getting them right. Pass and 4♦ both produce plus scores.

One of the four experts who have been members of all 30 panels since we began this competition, Wen-Fei Wang (right) leads the panel this month with an impressive 78/80. This is her fifth win, moving her into a tie with Andrew Robson.

Close behind this month comes Jessica Larsson, with 76/80, and a bunch-finish for third place. With a score of 74/80, Sally Brock, Marcelo Branco, Sanna Clemmentsson, Alan Mould, Miguel Villas-Boas and one of this month’s guest panelists, Paul Boudreau, complete the busiest podium we have ever had.

The Expert Panel

Find your bids here

MARKS

HAND 1:                    6♦ 10, 4NT 9, 5♣ 8, 5♦ 6
HAND 2:                    Pass 10, Dbl 7, 4♠ 6
HAND 3:                    2NT 10, 3NT 7, 3♦ 4, 4♦ 2
HAND 4:                    Pass 10, 5♠ 6, 5♥ 5, Dbl 2
HAND 5:                    2♠ 10, 3♠/4♦ 8, 2♥ 5, 3♥ 2
HAND 6:                    3NT 10, 3♠/Pass 8, 5♦ 6
HAND 7:                    5♠ 10, Dbl 7, Pass 6, 6♠ 4
HAND 8:                    4♦ 10, Pass 9, 4♥ 8, 5♦ 7

AVERAGE SCORE

HAND 1:                                5.46
HAND 2:                                6.74
HAND 3:                                4.64
HAND 4:                                6.91
HAND 5:                                5.19
HAND 6:                                6.67
HAND 7:                                8.00
HAND 8:                                7.78